20293. Adulteration  and  Misbranding of  cottonseed   meal.     U.S.  v.  Rome
Oil Mill, Inc.     Plea of guilty.     Fine, S50.     (F. & D. no.  25704.     I.S. 
nos. 016938, 016939.)
This action was based on the shipment of quantities of a product labeled as 
cottonseed meal containing 7 percent of ammonia, 36 percent of crude protein, 
and 14 percent of crude fiber, but which was in fact a cottonseed feed containing 
less ammonia and crude protein, and more crude fiber than labeled.
On May 16, 1932, the United States attorney for the Northern District of 
Georgia, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the 
District Court of the United States for the district aforesaid an information 
against the Rome Oil Mill, Inc., a corporation, Rome, Ga., alleging shipment by 
said company in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about January 20, 
and February 13, 1930, from the State of Georgia into the State of Tennessee, 
of quantities of cottonseed meal that was adulterated and misbranded. The 
article was labeled in part: (Tag) "Etowah Brand Cotton Seed Meal 36 Per 
Cent Protein Manufactured by Rome Oil Mill, Rome Ga. Guaranteed Analysis: 
Ammonia 7.00 per cent, Crude Protein 36.00 per cent, * * * Crude Fibre 
14.00 per cent."
It was alleged in the information that the article was adulterated in that 
cottonseed feed containing less than 7 percent of ammonia and less than 36 
percent of crude protein, and more than 14 percent of crude fiber had been 
substituted for the article.
Misbranding was alleged for the reason that the statements, " Cotton Seed 
Meal 36 Per Cent Protein * * * Guaranteed Analysis: Ammonia 7.00 per 
cent, Crude Protein 36.00 per cent * * * Crude Fibre 14.00 per cent", borne 
on the tags, were false and misleading, and for the further reason that the 
article was labeled as aforesaid so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser, 
since the article was not cottonseed meal but was cottonseed feed, and! it con-
tained less ammonia, less crude protein, and more crude fiber than labeled. 
Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that the article was an imitation 
of and was offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article, 
cottonseed meal.
On October 7, 1932, a plea of guilty to the information was entered on behalf 
of the defendant company, and the court imposed a fine of $50.
R. G. TUGWELL, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.